Lawsuit Against South Carolina Republican Party

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2019 Oct 01 12:09 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2019CP4005486
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

) FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF RICHLAND )
ROBERT DURDEN INGLIS; FRANK ) Civil Action No. 2019-CP-40-_______

HEINDEL, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
THE SOUTH CAROLINA ) SUMMONS
REPUBLICAN PARTY & DREW )
MCKISSICK, State Chairman of the )
South Carolina Republican Party, in his )
official capacity. )
)
Defendants.
TO: THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE NAMED:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the complaint
in the above-captioned action, a copy of which is herewith served upon you, and to
serve a copy of your answer on the subscribers located at 1325 Park Street, Suite
100, Columbia, South Carolina 29201, within thirty (30) days after service hereof,
exclusive of the day of such service, and if you fail to answer the complaint within
the time aforesaid, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief
demanded in the complaint.
By: s/Thornwell F. Sowell, III

Thornwell F. Sowell III, SC Bar No. 5197
Bess DuRant, SC Bar No. 77920
SOWELL & DuRANT LLC
1325 Park St., Suite 100
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 772-1100
Facsimile: (803) 281-8890
bsowell@sowelldurant.com
bdurant@sowelldurant.com
Cameron Kistler*
Rachel F. Homer*
THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 579-4582
Facsimile: (929) 777-8428
cameron.kistler@protectdemocracy.org
rachel.homer@protectdemocracy.org
John Langford*
555 W. 5th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (202) 579-4582
Facsimile: (929) 777-8428
Email: john.langford@protectdemocracy.org
Deana K. El-Mallawany*
15 Main Street, Suite 312
Watertown, MA 02472
Telephone: (202) 579-4582
Facsimile: (929) 777-8428
deana.elmallawany@protectdemocracy.org
Counsel for plaintiffs
Columbia, South Carolina

October 1, 2019
* Pro hac vice applications forthcoming.
1
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
) FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF RICHLAND )
ROBERT DURDEN INGLIS; FRANK ) Civil Action No. 2019-CP-40-_______

HEINDEL, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
THE SOUTH CAROLINA )
REPUBLICAN PARTY & DREW )
MCKISSICK, State Chairman of the )
South Carolina Republican Party, in )
his official capacity. )
)
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
1. This case is about the failure of the State Executive Committee of the
Republican Party of South Carolina to follow South Carolina law, the Republican
Party’s own rules, and the South Carolina Constitution when it unilaterally and
unlawfully canceled the 2020 South Carolina Republican presidential preference
primary.1 The result of that failure will be that plaintiffs Bob Inglis and Frank
Heindel—South Carolina Republicans who intended to vote in the 2020 South
Carolina Republican presidential preference primary—will be deprived of the
ability to vote for the candidate of their choice in South Carolina’s famous (and
1Presidential primaries are sometimes referred to as “presidential preference

primaries” because voters do not directly choose the party’s candidate for the
general election. Instead, voters bind delegates who go on to vote for the party’s
candidate at the national convention. This complaint uses the phrases “presidential
primary” and “presidential preference primary” interchangeably.
particularly influential) “First in the South” primary. Plaintiffs accordingly bring
this lawsuit to enforce their rights under South Carolina law; the rules of the South
Carolina Republican Party, which are judicially enforceable under South Carolina
law; and the South Carolina Constitution.
2. It didn’t have to be this way. South Carolina law, the rules of the
South Carolina Republican Party, and the South Carolina Constitution require that
a political party use a fair process to determine which candidate the state party
supports in the general election. They don’t necessarily require a political party to
hold a presidential preference primary election in all presidential election years.
Rather, they merely require that if a party wishes to cancel its primary, it must
observe certain democratic safeguards that ensure that a party’s supporters—and
not just a small junta of party bosses—support canceling the primary, and the party
must instead choose which candidate it will support at its state convention. But the
State Executive Committee has not complied with any of the democratic safeguards
required by both South Carolina law and Republican Party rules. Instead, the
State Executive Committee has chosen which candidate to support by fiat, and in
doing so, excluded Republican voters from the process entirely—in violation of the
law and its own rules.
3. Under South Carolina law, a political party must select which
candidates it will support by either a primary election or a party convention. S.C.
Code Ann. § 7–11–10. South Carolina requires a political party to follow its own
party rules, to the extent that those rules don’t conflict with state or federal law.
1
S.C. Code Ann. § 7–11–20. The South Carolina Constitution’s Due Process Clause
likewise compels political parties to follow their own rules before depriving
members of the right to vote in a primary election. See S.C. Const. art. I, § 3; Rice v.
Elmore, 165 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1947) (“When [party] officials participate in
what is a part of the state’s election machinery, they are election officers of the state
de facto if not de jure, and as such must observe the limitations of the
Constitution.”).
4. The rules of the South Carolina Republican Party specify a process for
canceling a presidential preference primary election: “the South Carolina
Republican Party shall conduct a statewide presidential preference primary,” unless
“decided otherwise by the state party convention within two (2) years prior to each
presidential election year.” S.C. GOP Rule 11(b)(1). So if the State Executive
Committee wanted to cancel the primary election, it needed to have the party
convention vote to do so beforehand.
5. The South Carolina Republican Party Rules are in line with the
democratic safeguards that South Carolina law itself imposes. South Carolina
specifies that a party may only select nominees through a primary or through a
party convention. S.C. Code Ann. § 7–11–10. And if a party that held a primary in
the prior election wishes to switch from a primary to a party convention, South
Carolina law also imposes additional procedural safeguards:
2
 First, there must be “a three-fourths vote of the total membership of
the convention to use the convention nomination process.” S.C. Code
Ann. § 7–11–30(A)(1).
 Second, “a majority of voters in that party’s next primary election
approve the use of the convention nomination process.” Id. § 7–11–
30(A)(2).
See generally id. § 7–11–30; see also Mem. from Assist. Att’y Gen. Brendan
McDonald to Exec. Dir. of S.C. Election Comm’n Marci Andino re: Equal Access to
the Ballot Act at 2–3 (Nov. 12, 2013) (describing how § 7–11–30 “change[d] the
procedure political parties utilize when they wish to change from the primary
nomination process, to a convention nomination process”).2
6. These procedural safeguards make sense: a switch from a primary to a
party convention is potentially worrying because it does not provide the same
opportunity to the voters to have as significant an input into the political process.
Party conventions carry with them a far higher risk that the views of few party
bosses could override the will of the party’s general members. Thus, both the party
rules and section 7–11–30 require the party bosses to ensure that the membership
is in favor of a move away from a primary. In fact, a 2014 resolution adopted
unanimously by the South Carolina Republican Party’s State Executive Committee
explained the value of its presidential preference primary:
2Available at http://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/andino-m-os-9690-
11-12-13-S.2-impact-on-political-parties-nominate-candidates-convention-
process.pdf.
3
WHEREAS, spirited and competitive primaries are a
healthy way to grow the Republican Party through
increased primary participation, and
WHEREAS, Republicans do not wish to be perceived as a

party that simply selects its nominees in a backroom or
underhanded fashion, and . . .
WHEREAS, anything other than a fair and legitimate

primary where state party staff and officers avoid even
the appearance of intervention could irrevocably damage
the integrity of our primary process and inadvertently
affect our “First in the South” presidential preference
status . . .
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that all state

Republican Party staff shall treat all campaigns equally,
maintaining public neutrality in the primary process[.]”
S.C. Republican Party State Exec. Comm. Res., Support of Integrity, Openness, and
Fairness in the Primary Process (May 3, 2014).3 Indeed, the Republican Party has
gone so far as to argue to a court that canceling a presidential primary would cause
“irreparable harm to the public interest” because “the citizens of South Carolina
deserve an opportunity to vote on the Republican nominee for President of the
United States.” Def. S.C. Republican Party’s Mem. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim.
Inj./Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss at 6, Coyne v. S.C. Sec’y of State, No. 3:15-cv-
03669 (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 2015), ECF No. 18.
7. But here—for whatever reason—the State Executive Committee of the
South Carolina Republican Party has not heeded its own wise counsel from 2014
3Available at https://www.sc.gop/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/SCGOP-Res-
PrimaryNeutrality.pdf.
4
and 2015. And its failure to do so violated its own rules, the South Carolina
Election Law, and the South Carolina Constitution.
8. Accordingly, left effectively disenfranchised by their own political party
and with no other remedy to protect their right to vote, plaintiffs now turn to this
Court to enforce the democratic safeguards guaranteed by party rules, state law,
and the South Carolina Constitution.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case
pursuant to Article V, Section 11 of the South Carolina Constitution, which gives
the Circuit Courts general jurisdiction over civil cases.
10. This Court also has “jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions,
actions and controversies, other than those involving rates of public service
companies for which specific procedures for review are provided in Title 58,
affecting boards, commissions and agencies of this State, and officials of the State in
their official capacities in the circuit where such question, action or controversy
shall arise.” S.C. Code Ann. § 15–77–50.
11. Venue is proper in this Court because the causes of action arose in
Richland County and the South Carolina Republican Party’s headquarters are in
the County. See id. § 15–7–30; see also id. § 15–7–20(2).
5
PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
12. Plaintiff Robert Durden Inglis is a registered voter in Greenville
County, South Carolina. He goes by Bob. His polling location is the Cleveland First
Baptist Church.
13. Mr. Inglis previously represented South Carolina as a Republican in
the United States Congress from 1993–1999 and 2005–2011. He has also served on
the executive committee of the Greenville County Republican Party.
14. Mr. Inglis has voted regularly in South Carolina, including in
numerous Republican primaries, for over three decades.
15. Before the South Carolina Republican Party announced that it had
canceled the 2020 Republican presidential primary, Mr. Inglis intended to vote in
that primary. He still desires to do so. Mr. Inglis views primary elections as the
place where he, as a member of the Republican Party, can shape how the party
looks and feels.
16. Mr. Inglis is harmed by the South Carolina Republican Party’s decision
to cancel the 2020 Republican presidential preference primary because it denies
him the ability to vote in the Republican primary and thus the ability to steer his
party in the direction he wants.
17. Plaintiff Frank Heindel is a registered voter in Charleston County,
South Carolina. His polling location is the Mt. Pleasant National Guard Armory.
6
18. Mr. Heindel regularly votes, including in the South Carolina
Republican primaries in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008, and 2012. He also has voted in
numerous general elections in South Carolina, including in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008,
2010, 2012, 2016, and 2018.
19. Mr. Heindel has donated to the South Carolina Republican Party.
20. Before the South Carolina Republican Party announced that it had
canceled the 2020 Republican presidential primary, Mr. Heindel intended to vote in
that primary. He still desires to do so. He believes that voting in a primary is part
of having a healthy debate, a healthy party, and a healthy democracy. He believes
that as a voter, he deserves to have a choice and to make his voice heard in the
primary.
21. Mr. Heindel is harmed by the South Carolina Republican Party’s
decision to cancel the 2020 Republican presidential preference primary because that
prevents him from being able to vote in the Republican primary. It thwarts his
opportunity to express his political views and participate in the democratic process.
B. Defendants
22. Defendant the South Carolina Republican Party (S.C. GOP) is an
unincorporated political organization, certified by the South Carolina State Election
Commission as a political party pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 7–9–10. See Aff. of
Karen Floyd ¶ 2, Greenville Cty. Republican Party Exec. Comm. v. South Carolina,
No. 6:10-cv-1407 (D.S.C. Feb. 10, 2011), ECF No. 28-4.
7
23. The S.C. GOP has its headquarters in Richland County, South
Carolina.
24. Defendant Drew McKissick is the State Chairman of the S.C. GOP.
Upon information and belief, he was elected to that position on May 13, 2017. He is
sued in his official capacity.
LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The organization of political parties in South Carolina
25. In South Carolina, political parties are organized under and regulated
by the South Carolina Election Law, codified at Title 7 of the South Carolina Code.
See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 7–1–10 et seq.
26. Chapter 9 of Title 7 governs the organization of political parties.
27. Section 7–9–10 provides that political parties must be certified by the
South Carolina State Election Commission.
28. Section 7–9–90 requires that each certified political party have a state
committee and delineates the composition of the state committee. The state
committee may appoint officers, and it is responsible for nominating presidential
electors and filling vacancies in the state ticket of electors and the national
committee of a party. Id.
29. Section 7–9–100 requires that each certified political party convene a
state convention “during a thirteen-month period ending May fifteenth of every
general election year.” The state convention is composed of delegates elected by
county conventions. Id. Parties may adopt or amend party rules at the state
convention, as well as nominate candidates.
8
B. The Election Law’s democratic safeguards on parties’ selection of
candidates
30. “It is too plain for argument” that the United States Constitution
allows South Carolina to “insist that intraparty competition be settled before the
general election by primary election or by party convention.” Am. Party of Tex. v.
White, 415 U.S. 767, 781 (1974).
31. To that end, the South Carolina Legislature has placed democratic
safeguards around the party primary process to ensure that party insiders cannot
subvert the will of party members. This case centers on three of those democratic
safeguards: Sections 7–11–10, 7–11–20, and 7–11–30 of the South Carolina Election
Law.
32. Section 7–11–10 imposes a basic requirement on certified political
parties in South Carolina: they must select their general election candidates by
either primary election or party convention. See S.C. Code Ann. § 7–11–10.4 Thus,
under South Carolina law, a political party cannot simply convene the party’s state
executive committee and pick its preferred candidate for a general election. A
party’s general election candidate must, instead, have some democratic
imprimatur—namely, that they be chosen by primary or convention.
4 For the sake of completeness, it’s worth noting that, for candidates who do not
intend to be nominated by any political party, section 7–11–10 also allows a
candidate to obtain a place on the general election ballot via petition, provided that
they have not been “defeated as a candidate for nomination to an office in a party
primary or party convention.” That portion of section 7–11–10 is not relevant to
this litigation.
9
33. Section 7–11–20 then adds an additional safeguard: “party
conventions or party primary elections . . . must be conducted in accordance
with . . . party rules[.]” Stated otherwise, a party’s state executive committee
cannot break the party rules that a party adopts at its convention when
determining who the party’s nominee will be.
34. Section 7–11–20(B) further explains that there is no exception to that
rule for presidential preference primaries held by a major political party (defined as
a party having won more than five percent of the vote in a previous presidential
election). Whenever such a party decides to hold a presidential preference primary
election, “the State Election Commission must conduct the presidential preference
primary in accordance with the provisions of this title and party rules.” Id. § 7–11–
20(B)(2) (emphasis added); see also Beaufort Cty. v. S.C. State Election Comm’n, 395
S.C. 369, 369–78, 718 S.E.2d 432, 433–39 (2011); cf. S.C. Code Ann. § 7–11–20(B)(1)
(“[A] certified political party wishing to hold a presidential preference primary
election may do so in accordance with the provisions of this title and party rules.”).
35. Finally, section 7–11–30 layers on yet another democratic safeguard,
imposing procedural requirements on a party that seeks to switch from a primary
election to a convention nomination process. See Mem. from Assist. Att’y Gen.
Brendan McDonald to Exec. Dir. of S.C. Election Comm’n Marci Andino re: Equal
Access to the Ballot Act at 2–3 (Nov. 12, 2013). First, there must be “a three-fourths
vote of the total membership of the convention to use the convention nomination
process.” S.C. Code Ann. § 7–11–30(A)(1). And second, “a majority of voters in that
10
party’s next primary election approve the use of the convention nomination
process.” Id. § 7–11–30(A)(2).
36. As a result, a major South Carolina political party cannot simply
cancel a primary election whenever the party’s state executive committee wants to;
under state law, the decision must instead receive the support of both a
supermajority of the party’s convention and a majority of the party’s primary voters.
37. That is important. As the State Executive Committee explained in its
2014 resolution, primaries guard against the perception that the “party . . . simply
selects its nominees in a backroom or underhanded fashion.” S.C. GOP State Exec.
Comm. Res., Support of Integrity, Openness, and Fairness in the Primary Process
(May 3, 2014). “[A]nything other than a fair and legitimate primary . . . could
irrevocably damage the integrity of [the S.C. GOP’s] primary process” and injure
“Republicans across South Carolina [who] deserve the primary election integrity”
that comes from a Republican Party primary. Id.
38. Taken together, sections 7–11–10, 7–11–20, and 7–11–30 impose three
limitations on a South Carolina political party’s state executive committee when the
party is picking general election candidates. A political party must (1) pick its
candidates by either primary or party convention, (2) must always follow its own
rules, and (3) if a party wishes to switch from a primary to a party convention, the
party members must chose to do so in both a convention vote and a primary vote.
11
C. The South Carolina Republican Party’s organization and own
democratic safeguards
39. As noted above, the S.C. GOP is an unincorporated political
organization, certified by the South Carolina State Election Commission as a
political party pursuant to section 7–9–10 of the South Carolina Code. Aff. of
Karen Floyd ¶ 2, Greenville Cty. Republican Party Exec. Comm. v. South Carolina,
No. 6:10-cv-1407 (D.S.C. Feb. 10, 2011), ECF No. 28-4.
40. On top of the democratic safeguards required by South Carolina’s
Election Law, the S.C. GOP’s own rules impose their own democratic safeguards on
the party’s selection of presidential candidates. See S.C. GOP, The Rules of the
South Carolina Republican Party (May 13, 2017) (“S.C. GOP Rules”).5 And South
Carolina law requires that the party follow its own rules. See S.C. Code Ann. § 7–
11–20.
41. The S.C. GOP’s current party rules were adopted at the party’s 1962
state convention and have been amended twenty-two times since, including, most
recently, at the 2017 state convention. See S.C. GOP Rules at 1.
42. Rule 11(b)(1) provides that, “[u]nless decided otherwise by the state
party convention within two (2) years prior to each presidential election year, the
South Carolina Republican Party shall conduct a statewide presidential preference
primary on a date selected by the chairman of the party.”
43. No other provision of the S.C. GOP Rules permits the State Executive
Committee to unilaterally decide not to conduct a primary.
5 Available at https://www.sc.gop/resources/rules/ (last visited Sept. 19, 2019).
12
44. In contrast, Rule 11(b)(2) of the S.C. GOP Rules explicitly provides
that, in the event the state party convention decides not to conduct a primary, the
State Executive Committee may “override the decision of the convention and
reinstate the primary.”
45. Together, Rule 11(b)(1) and Rule 11(b)(2) require the S.C. GOP to hold
a statewide presidential preference primary and preclude its State Executive
Committee from unilaterally deciding not to conduct a primary. Those rules are
legally binding on the party by operation of S.C. Code Ann. § 7–11–20.
46. The S.C. GOP’s commitment to holding primaries is to its own benefit.
As the S.C. GOP explained in a court filing in a different case, the party’s “status as
the ‘First in the South’ Republican presidential primary is critically important to
the continued status and vitality of the SCGOP as a leader in presidential politics
in our country.” Def. S.C. Republican Party’s Mem. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for
Prelim. Inj./Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss at 6, Coyne v. S.C. Sec’y of State, No. 3:15-
cv-03669 (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 2015), ECF No. 18. A failure to hold a presidential
primary “would cause irreparable harm to the SCGOP from which it would likely
never recover.” Id. at 6.
D. Overriding democratic safeguards, the State Executive Committee

unilaterally cancels its 2020 primary
47. Notwithstanding South Carolina’s Election Code and the S.C. GOP’s
own rules, on September 7, 2019, the State Executive Committee voted to cancel the
S.C. GOP’s 2020 presidential primary. See Jamie Lovegrove, SC Republicans Vote
13
to Forgo 2020 GOP Presidential Primary, Setting Up Trump Renomination, The
Post and Courier (Sept. 7, 2019).6
48. The S.C. GOP did not follow its own rules in doing so, as required by
S.C. Code Ann. § 7–11–20. And to the extent that the S.C. GOP characterizes its
decision as one to choose which presidential candidate it supports by party
convention rather than primary, the S.C. GOP failed to follow the required
procedure to switch from a party primary to a party convention, as mandated by
S.C. Code Ann. § 7–11–30.
49. The vote was not unanimous and faced immediate public rebuke from
many within the S.C. GOP. Rob Godfrey, who served as a top advisor to former
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, called the cancellation “a shady backroom
deal where a small group of party insiders made a big decision that stops hundreds
of thousands of voters from participating in the process.” See Steve Peoples et al.,
Still On: Iowa, New Hampshire, Won’t Nix 2020 GOP Contests, Associated Press
(Sept. 11, 2019).7 President Trump’s Republican challengers also spoke out against
the decision, publishing an op-ed calling the cancellation “an effort to eliminate any
threats to the president’s political power in 2020.” See Mark Sanford, Joe Walsh, &
6Available at https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/sc-republicans-vote-to-forgo-
gop-presidential-primary-setting-up/article_96d05722-d0d6-11e9-9771-
6ba2d039a3e4.html.
7 Available at https://www.apnews.com/3cf0a814468b4aa9bc1679aae61fe1ae.
14
Bill Weld, Opinion, We Are Trump’s Republican Challengers. Canceling GOP
Primaries Is a Critical Mistake, Wash. Post (Sept. 13, 2019).8
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 7–11–20
50. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all other paragraphs as
if fully set forth herein.
51. Section 7–11–20(A) of the South Carolina Code requires that
nominations by party conventions and party primaries be conducted “in accordance
with . . . party rules not in conflict with the provisions of this title or of the
Constitution and laws of this State or of the United States.”
52. Section 7–11–20(B)(2) likewise requires that when a major political
party (i.e., a party that received at least five percent of the popular vote in South
Carolina for the party’s candidate for President of the United States) decides to hold
a presidential preference primary election, it must do so “in accordance . . . with
party rules[.]”
53. The S.C. GOP is a major political party, and its current rules provide
that “[u]nless decided otherwise by the state party convention within two (2) years
prior to each presidential election year, the South Carolina Republican Party shall
conduct a statewide presidential preference primary on a date selected by the
chairman of the party[.]” S.C. GOP Rule 11(b)(1) (emphasis added).
8Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-are-trumps-republican-
challengers-canceling-gop-primaries-is-a-critical-mistake/2019/09/13/7a951c84-
d665-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html.
15
54. No other provision of the S.C. GOP Rules permits the State Executive
Committee to unilaterally cancel the party’s presidential preference primary.
55. Defendants therefore violated the S.C. GOP Rules and section 7–11–20
of the South Carolina Code in purporting to cancel South Carolina’s 2020
Republican presidential preference primary election.
56. Plaintiffs are harmed by the defendants’ unlawful act, as they are
Republicans in South Carolina who intended to—and still hope to—vote in the S.C.
GOP’s 2020 presidential preference primary, but will be prevented from doing so
without relief from this Court.
57. Unless enjoined by the Court, defendants, and those acting in concert
with them, will continue to violate S.C. Code Ann. § 7–11–20 and inflict irreparable
harm on plaintiffs by denying plaintiffs the ability to vote for the Republican
candidate of their choice in a presidential primary.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 7–11–10, 7–11–30
58. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations
contained in the preceding paragraphs.
59. Chapter 11 of Title 7 of the South Carolina Code governs the
“Designation and Nomination of Candidates.” Section 7–11–10 identifies the
“[m]ethods of nominating candidates.” It states that “nominations for candidates
for the offices to be voted on in a general or special election may be by political party
16
primary, by political party convention, or by petition.” 9 Id. It does not permit any
other method for nominating candidates for a general election.
60. Section 7–11–30 of the South Carolina Code describes the process that
a political party must use if it has nominated candidates by primary in the past but
wishes to nominate candidates by convention in the future. It states, in relevant
part:
(A) A party may choose to change from nomination of

candidates by primary to a method to nominate candidates
by convention for all offices . . . if:
(1) there is a three-fourths vote of the total

membership of the convention to use the convention
nomination process; and
(2) a majority of voters in that party’s next primary

election approve the use of the convention
nomination process.
S.C. Code Ann. § 7–11–30; see also Mem. from Assist. Att’y Gen. Brendan McDonald
to Exec. Dir. of S.C. Election Comm’n Marci Andino re: Equal Access to the Ballot
Act at 2–3 (Nov. 12, 2013).
61. Defendants have purported to decide by State Executive Committee
vote to use neither a primary nor a state convention to select who the state party
supports as a candidate for President. See Jamie Lovegrove, SC Republicans Vote
to Forgo 2020 GOP Presidential Primary, Setting Up Trump Renomination, The
Post and Courier (Sept. 7, 2019). Defendants are therefore in violation of section 7–
9The third option, nomination by petition, is only relevant to candidates who are
not nominated by a political party, and therefore is not relevant here. See supra
note 4.
17
11–10, which requires certified political parties to use either a party primary or a
state convention. S.C. Code Ann. § 7–11–10. The State Executive Committee of the
S.C. GOP is not empowered to take away the party members’ choice of candidates.
It must follow the law, which requires that the S.C. GOP decide which candidate it
supports either by party primary or by party convention.
62. Upon information and belief, the S.C. GOP intends to hold a state
party convention before May 15, 2020, as required by South Carolina law. See S.C.
Code Ann. § 7–9–100 (requiring that each certified political party convene a state
convention “during a thirteen-month period ending May fifteenth of every general
election year”).
63. To the extent defendants characterize the State Executive Committee’s
decision as one to use a party convention rather than a primary to determine who
the state party supports for President, defendants violated section 7–11–30 by
failing to follow the statutorily mandated process to switch from a primary to a
convention nomination process. Namely, upon information and belief, there was not
a three-fourths vote at the last state party convention to hold a convention to select
a nominee for President, as required by section 7–11–30(A)(1). Nor, upon
information and belief, did a majority of voters in the S.C. GOP’s most recent
primary election approve the use of the convention nomination process, as required
by section 7–11–30(A)(2).
64. Thus, defendants have violated section 7–11–10 by announcing their
decision to use neither a primary nor a convention, and to the extent they claim
18
that they have decided to use a convention, they have violated section 7–11–30 by
failing to comply with the democratic safeguards required for a political party to
switch from using a primary to using a convention. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 7–11–10,
7–11–30.
Republican voters registered in South Carolina, who intended to, and still wish to,
vote in the S.C. GOP’s 2020 presidential preference primary election and will now
be prevented from doing so.
with them, will continue to violate S.C. Code Ann. §§ 7–11–10 and 7–11–30 and
inflict irreparable harm on plaintiffs by denying plaintiffs the ability to vote for the
Republican candidate of their choice in a presidential primary.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the South Carolina Constitution Article I, § 3’s
Due Process Clause
68. When parties participate in the selection of candidates for a general
election, they are subject to the same constitutional bounds as state actors. See,
e.g., Beaufort Cty, 395 S.C. at 379 n.5, 718 S.E.2d 432 at 439 n.5 (Hearn, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part) (observing that parties’ presidential
preference primaries “are elections and accordingly are subject to state and federal
laws concerning the electoral process”); see also N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez
19
Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 203 (2008) (parties must abide by the constitution when they
play a role in the election process); Rice, 165 F.2d at 391 (“When [party] officials
participate in what is a part of the state’s election machinery, they are election
officers of the state de facto if not de jure, and as such must observe the limitations
of the Constitution.”).
69. The S.C. GOP is therefore subject to the bounds of South Carolina’s
constitution when it participates in selecting candidates for a general election.
70. South Carolina’s Due Process Clause provides that no person
“shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” S.C.
Const. art. I, § 3. It protects a person from being deprived of cognizable life, liberty
or property interests for “arbitrary reasons.” Worsley Cos., Inc. v. Town of Mount
Pleasant, 339 S.C. 51, 56, 528 S.E.2d 657, 660 (2000).
71. Once granted, the right to vote is a “liberty interest” protected by the
Due Process Clause. Cf. Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787 (1983)
(explaining that the right to vote is a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment). And state actors (which the S.C. GOP is in this context) must follow
their own rules before depriving individuals of liberty interests. See Triska v. Dep’t
of Health & Envtl. Control, 292 S.C. 190, 194, 355 S.E.2d 531, 533 (1987); see
generally United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 268 (1954).
72. By violating Rule 11(b) of its party rules and canceling its primary, the
State Executive Committee violated South Carolina’s Due Process Clause.
20
73. Plaintiffs are harmed by the defendants’ arbitrary and unlawful act, as
they are Republican voters in South Carolina who intended to, and still wish to,
vote in the S.C. GOP’s 2020 presidential preference primary election and will now
be prevented from doing so.
with them, will continue to act in an unconstitutional manner and inflict
irreparable harm on plaintiffs by denying plaintiffs the ability to vote for the
Republican candidate of their choice in a presidential primary.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Ultra Vires Action
76. The South Carolina Supreme Court has “long recognized . . . as the
province of the court to see that the established principles of law and order in the
conduct of party organizations be maintained, and associations or groups of
individuals, although organized on a political basis and having a political nature in
purpose, are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts.” Walker v. Grice, 162 S.C. 29,
159 S.E. 914, 917 (1931).
77. In conducting elections, certified political parties may exercise only
those powers granted to them by law and any rules made pursuant thereto. See
Rice, 165 F.2d at 391 (when party officials conduct elections they are subject to the
same legal constraints as state actors); Triska, 292 S.C. at 194, 355 S.E.2d at 533
(holding that state agencies must follow their own regulations and any action taken
21
in contravention of those regulations is null and void); Converse Power Corp. v. S.C.
Dep’t of Health & Env’t Control, 350 S.C. 39, 54–55, 564 S.E.2d 341, 350 (S.C. Ct.
App. 2002) (same); cf. Fisher v. Shipyard Vill. Council of Co-Owners, Inc., 415 S.C.
256, 271, 781 S.E.2d 903, 911 (2016) (“A corporation may exercise only those powers
granted to it by law, its charter or articles of incorporation, and any bylaws made
pursuant thereto.”); Fisher v. Shipyard Vill. Council of Co-Owners, Inc., 409 S.C.
164, 180, 760 S.E.2d 121, 130 (S.C. Ct. App. 2014), aff’d as modified, 415 S.C. 256,
781 S.E.2d 903 (2016) (same); Seabrook Island Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Pelzer, 292
S.C. 343, 348, 356 S.E.2d 411, 414 (S.C. Ct. App. 1987) (same).
78. By violating Rule 11(b) of its party rules and canceling its primary, the
State Executive Committee acted ultra vires in violation of the S.C. GOP’s rules and
state law. Therefore, the State Executive Committee’s actions are void ab initio.
Republican voters in South Carolina who intended to, and still wish to, vote in the
S.C. GOP’s 2020 presidential preference primary election and will now be prevented
from doing so.
with them, will continue to act in an ultra vires manner and inflict irreparable harm
on plaintiffs by denying plaintiffs the ability to vote for the Republican candidate of
their choice in a presidential primary.
22
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
a. that the Court declare that the S.C. GOP has violated section 7–11–20
of the South Carolina Code and its own party Rules;
b. that the Court declare that the S.C. GOP has violated sections 7–11–10
and 7–11–30 of the South Carolina Code;
c. that the Court declare that the S.C. GOP is obligated, under sections
7–11–10, 7–11–20, and 7–11–30 of the South Carolina Code, to hold a
presidential preference primary;
d. that the Court declare the S.C. GOP has violated the South Carolina
Constitution’s Due Process Clause, art. I, § 3;
e. that the Court declare that the S.C. GOP has acted ultra vires, and its
actions are void ab initio;
f. that the Court order the S.C. GOP to conduct a presidential preference
primary as required by the South Carolina Code sections 7–11–10, 7–
11–20, and 7–11–30, its own party Rules, and the South Carolina
Constitution;
g. that the Court award attorneys’ fees and litigation costs to Plaintiff’s
attorneys as provided by law;
h. that the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin all defendants

and anyone acting in privity with the defendants from further
violations of the law; and
i. that the Court grant all other and further relief as it may deem
necessary.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial of all issues so triable. See S.C. R. Civ. P. 38.
Date: October 1, 2019
23
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/Thornwell F. Sowell, III

Thornwell F. Sowell III, SC Bar No. 5197
Bess DuRant, SC Bar No. 77920
SOWELL & DuRANT LLC
1325 Park St., Suite 100
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 772-1100
Facsimile: (803) 281-8890
bsowell@sowelldurant.com
bdurant@sowelldurant.com
Cameron Kistler*
Rachel F. Homer*
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 579-4582
Facsimile: (929) 777-8428
cameron.kistler@protectdemocracy.org
rachel.homer@protectdemocracy.org
John Langford*
555 W. 5th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (202) 579-4582
Facsimile: (929) 777-8428
Email: john.langford@protectdemocracy.org
Deana K. El-Mallawany*
15 Main Street, Suite 312
Watertown, MA 02472
Telephone: (202) 579-4582
Facsimile: (929) 777-8428
deana.elmallawany@protectdemocracy.org
Counsel for plaintiffs
* Pro hac vice applications forthcoming.
24

Lawsuit Against South Carolina Republican Party

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Lawsuit Against South Carolina Republican Party

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2019 Oct 01 12:09 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2019CP4005486

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

ROBERT DURDEN INGLIS; FRANK ) Civil Action No. 2019-CP-40-_______

TO: THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE NAMED:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the complaint

demanded in the complaint.

By: s/Thornwell F. Sowell, III

Counsel for plaintiffs

Columbia, South Carolina

* Pro hac vice applications forthcoming.

ROBERT DURDEN INGLIS; FRANK ) Civil Action No. 2019-CP-40-_______

unlawfully canceled the 2020 South Carolina Republican presidential preference

Heindel—South Carolina Republicans who intended to vote in the 2020 South

Carolina Republican presidential preference primary—will be deprived of the

1Presidential primaries are sometimes referred to as “presidential preference

law; and the South Carolina Constitution.

hold a presidential preference primary election in all presidential election years.

observe certain democratic safeguards that ensure that a party’s supporters—and

law and its own rules.

3. Under South Carolina law, a political party must select which

candidates it will support by either a primary election or a party convention. S.C.

canceling a presidential preference primary election: “the South Carolina

Republican Party shall conduct a statewide presidential preference primary,” unless

convention vote to do so beforehand.

Carolina law also imposes additional procedural safeguards:

the convention to use the convention nomination process.” S.C. Code

 Second, “a majority of voters in that party’s next primary election

approve the use of the convention nomination process.” Id. § 7–11–

nomination process, to a convention nomination process”).2

6. These procedural safeguards make sense: a switch from a primary to a

is in favor of a move away from a primary. In fact, a 2014 resolution adopted

unanimously by the South Carolina Republican Party’s State Executive Committee

explained the value of its presidential preference primary:

WHEREAS, Republicans do not wish to be perceived as a

WHEREAS, anything other than a fair and legitimate

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that all state

deserve an opportunity to vote on the Republican nominee for President of the

03669 (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 2015), ECF No. 18.

7. But here—for whatever reason—the State Executive Committee of the

Election Law, and the South Carolina Constitution.

8. Accordingly, left effectively disenfranchised by their own political party

and the South Carolina Constitution.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

pursuant to Article V, Section 11 of the South Carolina Constitution, which gives

the Circuit Courts general jurisdiction over civil cases.

shall arise.” S.C. Code Ann. § 15–77–50.

the County. See id. § 15–7–30; see also id. § 15–7–20(2).

12. Plaintiff Robert Durden Inglis is a registered voter in Greenville

13. Mr. Inglis previously represented South Carolina as a Republican in

the executive committee of the Greenville County Republican Party.

14. Mr. Inglis has voted regularly in South Carolina, including in

numerous Republican primaries, for over three decades.

looks and feels.

to cancel the 2020 Republican presidential preference primary because it denies

party in the direction he wants.

17. Plaintiff Frank Heindel is a registered voter in Charleston County,

2010, 2012, 2016, and 2018.

of having a healthy debate, a healthy party, and a healthy democracy. He believes

21. Mr. Heindel is harmed by the South Carolina Republican Party’s

22. Defendant the South Carolina Republican Party (S.C. GOP) is an

unincorporated political organization, certified by the South Carolina State Election

No. 6:10-cv-1407 (D.S.C. Feb. 10, 2011), ECF No. 28-4.

sued in his official capacity.